Firms warm to the FCA: trust rises, but the growth test is still ahead

The FCA has rarely had a better set of scores from the firms it regulates. The 2026 FCA and Practitioner Panel survey, published on 2 October, shows 79% of firms are highly satisfied with their relationship with the regulator, up from 74% a year ago, with 76% rating it a highly effective regulator and 75% reporting high levels of trust (FCA). For an authority that spent much of the last decade absorbing criticism over Woodford, mini-bonds and the cost of Consumer Duty implementation, the shift in sentiment is material.

Key Executive Takeaways

• The FCA's 2026 survey records 79% firm satisfaction and a 27-point jump in understanding of its growth objective, signalling a genuine reset in regulator-industry relations.
• Senior leaders should treat the Consumer Duty debate as settled on expectations (88% of firms say they understand them) and refocus internal effort on evidencing outcomes.
• The Practitioner Panel is now pressing the FCA to publish measurable outcomes against its priorities, which will tighten accountability on both sides and shape how firms frame their own supervisory conversations.

The standout number is not satisfaction but the 27-percentage-point increase in firms' understanding of the Secondary International Competitiveness and Growth Objective, and a 25-point rise in confidence in its delivery (FCA). A year ago, SICGO was treated by many general counsel as rhetorical cover. The survey suggests the message, backed by what the FCA describes as nearly 50 pro-growth measures and £5.6bn in estimated benefits delivered in year one of its strategy, is now landing with the people who write supervisory responses. That matters because competitiveness arguments only work when firms are prepared to make them in writing, in authorisation files and in Section 166 responses.

The Consumer Duty picture is quieter but arguably more consequential. 88% of firms now say they understand what the FCA expects on supporting consumers and embedding the Duty (FCA). That removes a defence. Boards can no longer credibly argue ambiguity on expectations, and the FCA's enforcement and supervisory teams know it. Chief risk officers and consumer-outcomes leads should assume that the next phase will be an evidence contest, not an interpretation one, with the regulator pressing on data quality, outcomes testing and fair-value reviews rather than policy wording.

The more interesting signal sits in Matt Hammerstein's statement. The Practitioner Panel chair said the Panel is encouraging the FCA 'to be clearer about the outcomes it expects its priorities to produce, and more vocal about the progress it is making against these' (FCA). That is a polite way of saying that industry wants targets it can hold the regulator to. Combined with the new board appointments of Lea Paterson, Matthew Tobin and Sarah Pritchard on 1 October (FCA), and the opening of the crypto authorisation gateway with a 28 February 2027 application deadline (FCA), the FCA is heading into 2027 with more goodwill, more scrutiny of its own delivery, and a board better equipped to defend both.

For senior leaders, the implication is practical. The window to raise competitiveness arguments with a receptive regulator is open and will be judged on specificity. Vague appeals to proportionality will not survive the new, more outcome-focused dialogue the Panel has just invited.